Politics. Not easy … not easy to understand what’s behind President Erdoğan’s decisions. I do not pretend that I have the answer to this riddle. It’s safe to assume that Erdoğan somehow has a plan, and that he somehow knows what he is doing. The question is, what could such a “plan” be? Personal gain and securing power, that’s the nearest guess. And what else, if anything? At the end of the day it’s not about being moral and popular, it’s about the net increase or decrease of political power. That’s my philosophical stance when talking politics. It’s not good, not bad. Something works or not. This is Machiavellism in political philosophy. What I believe as an individual, and how I feel about things are not relevant. Human rights and respect of the enemy are both very important – or we may say ethical behaviour – but this is not the topic on this page, although we will have to speak about religion below. We are trying to guess a strategy, if possible anticipate moves, like in a difficult game of chess.
There is certainly an amount of proud “Panturkism” in Erdoğan’s decisions, and the “brotherly help” to other Muslims who need it, or not. Even so, this does not suffice to understand Erdoğan’s dangerous gamble between Russia and the NATO. On a closer look, there is also the practical contradiction of being against Kurdish autonomy in Syria and at the same time acting against the Assad regime, which would not tolerate a separatist enclave in the north of its territory. Syria and the engagement of Russia belong to another dimension, and Erdoğan seems to miss it completely. Another argument could be that Turkey is competing with Iran for regional power over Muslim countries and the natural resources there. Possible, but not very plausible either. Or a rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Or a competition about energy resources with Russia. Maybe something of everything.
Success for Erdoğan is when Turkey becomes “bigger” – not in territory, but in political importance: the net increase or decrease of political power of Turkey (Comprehensive National Power, compared to competitors). One possible strategy for Erdoğan would be to present Turkey as an anti-Israel pole for Muslim nations worldwide unwilling to sign symbolic peace agreements with Israel. This would require respective moves within the UN, and bilateral negotiations, officially on behalf of the Palestinians, but in reality pursuing Turkey’s own interests. This is what I would recommend as a Vizir to Erdoğan, if we imagine for a moment such a scene. And I would recommend to leave NATO and to make advances to Russia – ultimately to join the China Bloc in Turkey’s own interest (see my earlier text on this site). With America in decline China will take over soon. Russia under President Putin is in a good strategic position, the more so when the West falls to Neomarxism and Chinese interests (China and their cronies both sides of the Atlantic). We will see how things play out.
We have to distinguish (i) internal Turkish affairs, (ii) Turkey’s foreign policy, (iii) Turkey as a part of the Muslim world. The first two points are replete with details and apparent or actual contradictions. As a foreigner who does not master the Turkish language I can’t go into it. Concerning democracy and dictatorships I will repeat that I’m loyal to (and proud of) Swiss federal democracy. Being a conservative realist, I’m not blind to the fact that Western countries engage in crimes against their own citizens (surveillance, indoctrination, letting criminals and anarchists terrorise citizens, a “sin of omission” and a political tool in America, etc.) and abroad (rigged elections, false flag operations, support of terrorism, regime change, etc.). So there is no clear line between good and evil. That’s a fact. There is ground to be critical of governments like those in Ankara, Damascus, Jerusalem or Moscow, but socialists (like the French President) and neocommunists (like the next American Vice President) are not competent and trustworthy judges, far from it. Such people should not be anywhere near the levers of power. The following rule applies always and everywhere (I derive it from the great Goethe): You will only understand what you respect, and you are entitled to give a judgement on something only if you understand it. Respect, understanding, judgement. That’s the right attitude, contrary to widespread arrogant Western views. Let’s go from Goethe to Islam.
Religion. What is happening in the Western world? I can educate the reader with a few sentences: Take the chapter “History of Socialism” as a part of European history (and of the history of capitalism) on the one hand; take the Soviet state religion Marxism-Leninism on the other hand. Transform the two into the various Neomarxist doctrines that are the canon in the West since about fifty years (analogous to a religion and its sects). That’s the cultural situation in Western Europe and in North America. The Neomarxist indoctrination and infiltration is now in the last phase. Intelligence agencies, the deep state (the administrative state, unaccountable intelligence agencies, etc.), the leadership of big business (Davos-type techno-globalism), the media and the education system are already in Neomarxist hands, they are lost. Now is the turn of the army and of religious institutions such as the Catholic Church. The Western world is caught in a profound cultural contradiction – it is at the same time for and against God and the three revealed religions in the line of Abraham. That’s an objective statement, not just my opinion. The Neomarxist indoctrination benefits the Chinese communist party, but it was not started by it, and even today it doesn’t seem to be substantially sponsored by the Chinese ruling class. It’s a self-made delusion. Cultural suicide. A tragedy, really. The Chinese don’t need that. Many think or feel that China is a superior nation, with or without communism (as I wrote elsewhere). So their egoistical perspective is the dominant one, not the mission “liberate the world now” or “control the climate now” like the religious belief of modern pseudo-scientific Marxists. If this is true, we have to offer a symbolical flower to the Chinese communist party. If the most consequential party in the world doesn’t engage in war (until now) and in directly sponsoring Neomarxism in Western media and education, we can thank the heaven of Chinese tradition for it!
Muslims may remember the image of a “wall of ice” from the dramatic history of Muslim conquests in the West. I believe – and again, I may be wrong – that all religions that have the inner strength to resist Marxist influences and distortions will one day be united in the defence of their respective creeds. The wall of ice of monotheism against the waves of heat and hate of radical socialism (now the oligarchic socialism of China and Davos). Religions in the line of Abraham – including Mormons, and even radical protestant communities in North America who voted for Donald Trump against socialism – have the historic duty to defend the freedoms of faith and of expression. It’s the holy cause against the evils of our time (neocommunism, crude materialism, social engineering). The general attitude of religious individuals as opposed to reckless ideological individuals is: a sense of gratitude, loyalty, fear of God. Perhaps the essence of it all is humbleness, the very opposite of anarchist and socialist action to upend the social and moral order we know. Philosophers and theologians may discuss that further. The question is, will this suffice to stop the onslaught of modern Marxism or Maosim? Maybe not. The future is uncertain. And so is the right road for the Turkish Republic.
written exclusively for NAT by Dr. M. Roggo (*1969)
Matt Roggo, PhD is a Swiss intellectual, a new conservative against racism and globalism. He studied Philosophy and Sociology at Berne, Basel and Geneva universities. He is writing an alternative blog on philosophy and is active on Twitter in the context of the 2020 elections in America. Readers are welcome to contact the author: @SwissFederalist
News about Turkey offers readers different points of view. The opinion expressed in this text is not necessarily shared by NAT.
